that is all about or should have been all about him and get it was the most ego lists on self-referential thing you could imagine which is hard to do. >> to watch the full program search on booktv.org and if you want to see more of the new orleans book festival, just search new orleans book festival at the top of the page. we have this compelling debate one should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel

use to prevent climate catastrophe and we want to give them the full hour. we dids this debate at the university of miami in florida and boulder last week and in that case it was alice epstein developing wesley clark and you can find both of those debates on steamboat institute's youtube channel. today we have alex but we have a different debate opponent. and let me briefly introduce -- i will read their bios and i believe they are going to come up to the stage after i introduced them. wele are very pleased to have wh us this morning professor andrew tessler o a professor of atmospheric science at texas a&m university. he is a climate scientist who studies both of the science and politics of climate change. he is the chair in geoscience at texas a&m and was named director of texas a and m center for

climate studies. he also served in the clinton administration during the last year he served as a senior policy analyst in the white house office of science and technology policy. his latest book, introduction to modern climate change won the 2014 american meteorological society's offer is a word. we are also pleased to have alex epstein the president and founder of the center for industrial progress, author of the moral case for fossil fuels. alex is a philosopher that argues that human flourishing should be the guiding principle of industrial and environmental progress. he is the author of "the new york times" bestseller the moral case for fossil fuel. and alex is known for his willingness to debate anyone, anytime and has publicly debated the leading environmentalist organizations such as grains greenpeace, the sierra club and 350.org over the immunology of

fossil fuel and finally, the moderator for this morning's debateri is from the denver gazette and is a longtime journalist and more than 25 year veteran of the colorado political scene. he's been an award-winning reporter and editorial page editor, senior legislative staffer at the capitol and a political consultant. let's welcome the professor and alex epstein to the stage. [applause] ♪♪ can everyone hear me? okay.

good. let's get right down to the business of it now that you've had the introductions from jennifer. not everyone can see me but you can hear my voice. we willo have each offered an opening statement on his view of the proposition, which you have heard before you. and let me repeat for the record that is should america rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent climate catastrophe. what were are going to do is hae andrew go first. each will do an opening statement a kind of stating whee they are at with about seven and a half minutesw each in after i said, andrew will go first and will be followed by alex and alr then we will give andrew a chance to read that anything he feels needs to be addressed at

any point that alex raised. >> thanks. let me begin by saying energy is the most important thing in the world. if you have energy you can do anything else you want. so whatay is the best way to generate energy. now, wee generate most from fossil fuels right now but let me talk about some of the disadvantages. let's talk about number one, climate change and why i am sextremely concerned about climate change. let's go back to the last ice age. this is basically with north america looked like covered with thousands of feet of ice were covered. there were different ecosystems, the seaa i level was 300 feet lower. yit was a different planet if u walkedt. outside you wouldn't recognize your planet. now it was about 10 degrees fahrenheit colder at that time to think about that. and the global average you cool the planet and we are going to

call that an ice agent, 10 degrees so let's think about the future. we are on track for 5 degrees of warming. that's half of an ice age unit. tythat has the possibility to completely remake the surface of the earth. now, we can try to endow to this that is possible and even plausible that if we do that in 2100, our descendents are going to be spending all of their money building seawalls and energy and water infrastructure iland things like that. they will be significantly impoverished by this. moving on, they killed millions of people around the world due to air pollution. in addition there is the national security risk. so theseut are some headlines tt are not that far out of date. texas gasch prices will reach fr dollars per gallon and energy sector. now let me give youou a headline that will never be read. the wind prices skyrocketed as

the energy sector response to the u.s. and russia tensions. saudi arabia with increased sunlight and midterms the headlines will not recur. we will never invade in order to rescue wind and son. and the fossil fuels are commodities, so the price is there and we are experiencing right now gas is five dollars a gallon. this is causing incredible pain. i have an electric car and philip for ten dollars and it's ten dollars last month and will be next month. it's always the same. the variability is extremely economicallyin damaging where if you are ' small business owner what is the price of gas going to be in a year. nobody knows. how do you make plans when you can't predict the price of energy. okay you they run the grid in

texas and if you have a published statistic on what people are connecting to the grid, it is 90% of solar wind and battery, 10% gas because they realize the cheapest energy as wind and solar. sorry about that. i put a question there because people t often say what about subsidy. i don't want to get into that.

but let me talk about this thing that isn't arguable. let's look at the trend. this shows people on that side of the room will have to look over the price of energy this is solar going down from there. this is the trend and it isn't going to stop. what that means is we can argue about now the window solar or the cheapest energy of the future there can be no debate about that. now people will tell you wind and solar are intermittent and that is true so then the question becomes can you build a grid that uses intermittent renewable energy. i'm not going to give you my opinion or a hunch or claim i know the answer. there is an enormous amount of research that has gone on about this over the last decade. so we know the answer.

unless you can say where these people went wrong, your feelings don't matter. this is a math and physics and engineering problem. so i will talk a little bit about how you build a grid that runs mainly on energy that's still reliable. the first thing you have to do is realize the two classes of energy there is what you might call the fuel saver that is wind and solar intermittent power and then the power you turn on and off anytime you want. so, for example the fuel savers are wind and solar. they don't burn fuel. it could be a nuclear, hydro, geothermal, gas, carbon capture, long-term storage and what you want to do for the grid is use a much renewable as you can and anytime it doesn't give power you turn on the thermostat full power. you might ask why do this. why not just have a great it's

a100% nuclear and the answer is it is going to be a lot more expensive but you want to pay the least amount of money this is the grade you want to look at and on g average it could be abt 75. different groups have different numbers. and about 25% for the power. let me just wrap up. we need power but we can get power from wind and solar. the cheapest energy source of the future. we can build based on a decade of the peer review research we can build a grid thatd does rely and providers energy at low cost. that will avoid the fact that it poisoned the air and the economic cost of the fact they don't pull us into war. so i will wrap up with this. thank you. >> thank you. you came in basically with 45

seconds to spare. >> it's all yours. >> when you have a debate like this i think the assumption is that there's going to be a big difference to the climate science and for most citizens true. i think the key difference here is between me and the whole net zero movement is the methodology and the philosophy. i think about the methodology and i have a very particular methodology for thinking about this issue. what's interesting about the methodology as no one has ever disagreed with the methodology and yet i've never met one opponent of the i fossil fuels - let me just explain there's four wkey factors we have to considr when thinking about fossil fuels

and climate and rising co2 and the benefits of rising co2. we need to think about our ability to master or adapt to any kind of climate change and the benefits of the fossil fuels. so, my analysis is usually what happens in this movement is talkingg about the rising co2 harm the overstate. b rising co2 benefits tends to be trivialized or denied. the denial is rampant and i will show that. so i'm going to go through each of the factors and explain my view and the professors. so we start off with the harm. i generally find he's one of themore honest commentators. what they say is nothing

resembling what we hear in thexa media for example with the sea level rises you're talking by the year 2100 and extreme scenarios. and exclusively we have no idea in terms of what it will do. to not tell you it's not going to be bad but i think it could be. when we talk about the degrees fahrenheit it's important to recognize we are already up so when you talk about 5 degrees or 10 degrees i think we need to be more honest about that.nd so it means 3 degrees from now and today that brings us to the rising co2 benefits which even if you picked the benefits aree demonstrably huge particularly it's been vetted many times. there's also in terms of the crops benefiting.

it's very significant and measured. the fact that this wasn't mentioned or acknowledged shows a kind of bias that we are going to see more. and here is where we get into the problem of that. it is a fact climate -related rd disaster deaths of this temperatures are down 98% over the last century and it's demonstrable about fossil fuels would provide 80% of the low cost used to master that they are the key cost for example using fossil fuels to power irrigation and transport to make it safer. the mastery is so great that 100 million people in the world live below the sea level so in terms of 100 million people they are below and totally fine so here's what i find objectionable. thisis is never mentioned.

thousands of pages not mentioned. i had never seen him mentioned and he didn't mention it here this is like t discussing polio without the fact of a vaccine. we are masters of climate to not mdiscuss this is claimant masty denial. a simple. nothing a claimant mastery project is about the future harm can be trusted because they denied the claimant mastery and it certainly applies to the professor so the final factor that is even more egregious is denying the benefits of fossil fuel so they are uniquely scalable providing energy for billions of people and versatile means you might have noticed he only talks about the electricity that's only 20% of the energy

use. fossil fuels are growing particularly in china and other parts that of the most reliable energy. it's curious why china isn't going all in so it's a allegedly cheap and if we look at the solar and the actual performance or out of the world, it's very clear they are only used in places that have large subsidies and mandates and they add costs when you see more solar and wind the electricity prices go up. why is this? it's very simple you look at this graph and see sometimes solar and wind can go to zero. what does that mean? it means 100% back up so you have to pay for the cost of the 100% reliable gradient all of the unreliable infrastructure including the transmission and most importantly the reliable power plant. when you try to cut the power o plant for the resiliency measures like what happened in texas or california then you have the disasters. on top of this people need the energy like the one third of the

world so they are uniquely cost-effectivew and its low cost to eliminate them. how can he claim this. he is using two denials that either he is unaware of or is being -- these are personal cost accountants and then relying on the term as possibilities. so the personal cost he uses the cost of energy and anyone that uses this is either ignorant or defrauding and, i mean, this very literally. if you look at the actual numbers is explicitly doesn't take into account reliability related considerations, so it only looks atal the cost of the solar panel but not the transmission line. and not the backup. that's like saying i have a eacheap employee $18 an hour instead of 20 but you have to nspay to the same to work and that's expensive and 100% reliable staff. but it's so cheap. you need to look at the full cost of this is personal cost accounting. then in terms of the possibilities, the professor talks about the nuclear hydro

and geothermal in terms of supporting this magical grid so nuclear doesn't work with intermittent solar and wind. it's the bottom one that works steadily. it's the one that goes up and down and hydro's location limited and as also said i agree hithe hydro isn't something to expand and then geothermal is highly location and a fraction of a% so either revealing a tremendous amount of ignorance about energy he has a fantastic argument or he's engaging in the delivery and if somebody is restoring the present,, they cannot be trusted in the future so i look forward to engaging in these issues but there's a lot to answer for. >> thank you all. [applause] as agreed what we are s going to do is give a chance to briefly refute some of the points in the

minute and a half. i'm not sure where to begin. can you put my slides back up. i'm not going to bore you. but again first of all a lot of the advantages that were talked about when he talked about the advantage of fossil fuels were not the advantage of fossil fuels but they were the advantage ofu power and it doesn't matter where you get the power. t they showed germany and california. come on. this applauded all the states. it's how much renewable energy they have. this is a correlation.

it isn't more expensive to add renewable energy. that's false. as far as nuclear and i have to say i did talk about adaptation. the one thing that he's not talking about but it's the cost so if you want to build a seawall, that is tens of billions oft? dollars. who's going to pay for that? wee are. claimant mastery makes us poor. if you go to california to the producers they are not checking in water or building a pipeline. they are just ripping their trees out of the ground and helping them with of the mastery of the' climate. it's too expensive to do it to master the claimant, when you have the cheap renewable energy available. now, certainly there are costs associated and those exist with all systems and if you look at

the studies that have been done like the 2035 study or the net to zero study, they include the cost of the transmission line. again you have to look at the peer-reviewed literature. he is right we also need to electrify so that is another part of the problem. but we can electrify many of that probably 95%. and getting to the last 5% like the international flights that difficult. >> i hate to cut you off, but i've got to. >> i can see this from the questions that are coming in and what i will try to do is balance

some of that with the more technical questions and a lot of which are over my head. i'm going to try to balance that witht some priority policies. let me start off with one of those. i've recognized the stopping fossil fuels would make the earth unlovable and andrew wrote this month the amount is on track to the experiences and will transform in unimaginable ways. somebody like me that's not an energy expert looks at both of those y and thought what if they are both right. in which case in the attempt to curb the climate change, should we try to adapt and can we.

>> certainly we have to adapt. adaptation isn't magic. people say we will use fossil fuels to master but that i will give you one example. houston almost got wiped out by hurricane ike so they've been proposing to build $30 billion, so compared to the price of houston but they just can't get the money. so, it is extremely expensive to adapt into certainly we have to adapt to what we can't avoid and we can't avoid the low cost a lot of the warming and if you can avoid it for cheaper than you have to adapt, you should do that. >> disappointed in the response to my opening if somebody

pointed out that i'm using fraudulent statistics in t terms of the energy and also that i'm using imaginary scenarios in terms of this hydro antinuclear and geothermal solar wind, like that would really give me pause instead of just referring to some academic studies in the future. so i t just want to reiterate tt the conclusions have become more livable with fossil fuels and it is based on looking at the long picture that it continues not to do. if you look at the benefits it provides low-cost and reliable energy to power the machines and we are 50 times safer than we were 100 years ago. that is amazing at it needs to be stressed. if you look at the claimant damages it is 2 degrees

fahrenheit, they are flat in some cases they are declining. theres is no climate crisis at all and thats there is actuallya climate renaissance right now thet idea that 3 degrees more fahrenheit isth going to be a disaster is cherry picking is an anecdote looking at the big picture. the big picture is clear that it is in pulver schmidt. >> to follow up on that view, if there is an increase from one to 5 degrees by the end of the century, does it make more sense nonetheless to adapt and expand what we have to do rather than necessarily trying to go to net on the carbon emissions? >> so, as they shouldn't even be on the table in f the full context.

what policies should you have given that energy is so important. to engage in any liberation that is possible and we are fortunate that it was cheaper for electricity the in fossil fuel and nuclear which was criminalized by the great movement to the point that the nuclear prices almost ten times more today. but they also make energy more available. again it is the movement and i think the professor's track record i look to every statement he made about nuclear on twitter. until this year and he closed it but that is another distortion.

he is a major part of anna supporters of such deliberate nuclear and natural gas and all alternatives and do notot hold them back about solar and wind. >> this is one from the audience. environmental justice seems to require making life for the poor and middle-class more expensive. is the only solution to reducing fossil fuel use making american families by [inaudible] >> they run the system. getting back to your statement if we want to get to a world

that doesn't w have air pollutin as hasn't been mentioned the millions killed by fossil fuels ifwa we want to get away from that, which i think we should, then we need to switch to electric. i don't think everyone needs to buy a tesla. what is happening is ten years ago, people would have laughed at you if you told them the penetration of electric cars today. what's goingre to happen in the future is driving down the renewable energy prices and driving down all these other prizes. and againin remember, to hammer down on this point of telling you something is wrong, you can complain about this but look at what the texas producers are doing. they arere building wind and solar. they don't care what it says. they are doing c at the that calculation if they've made the calculation. now, so certainly this energy

that wenc are experiencing is going to drive innovation in ten or a 20 years. electric carsl are better. >> the flat screen tv as we called it. >> in 1988. then the ibm electric. >> you mentioned the study and here is another reference by an audience member. itla does the study include the full cost and the backup for the wind and solar generation? >> that is a great question and a fundamental mistake that people think about when they say itif needs backup so as we talk about if you think it's a mistake to think about this in the energy versus energy think about it from the grid standpoint and when you want to go on the grid and generate as much power as you can it's

including the cost of that. it's the amount of energy thinking about it wrong if that's the way you think about it. >> this is a great difference between us because i think it's completely wrong so i just want to explain it but i thought i explained it earlier. you have to look atll the full cross of it so like we want all of the solar wind you can think of that like an unreliable worker willing to work cheap like i will work for 18 or $20 an hour but again they are associated and i mentioned the transmission costs. the most important things are backup costs. maybe it iss too little bit what that means is the system of cost necessary tobl make an intermittent unreliable and public solar and wind and turn

it into a reliable output. and you have to look at the whole cost. hihe mentioned there is no correlation. what happens is to the members when you add a solar and wind and if there is a correlation that goess up some have super cheap electricity already so there's a lot more distortion. i want to point out this is a huge distortion to act like putting the same price on something that is unreliable as one executive put it putting the same price on the car that works all the time are different and we have an unfair grid then subsidized on top of that instead of decriminalizing and getting something done.

>> people have donehe that stud. that's what they've done. they've done that. it's not something that we are a ignoring. any projection that doesn't acknowledge the present all the studies every single one i looked at they are claiming solar and wind have made things cheaper already so that shows the skill, something we know has already made things more expensive they are denying that. soe the denial about the future then also making up the hypothetical things based on faulty assumptions. what i go by is what is actually happening and theyer are in a total predicament dependent on russiaok because they believe te fantasies instead of looking at reality. implement them at one place to be successful.

do not force us to ban fossil fuels which is what you're ofocating in the name economic fallacies, and fantasies. fantasies. >> there is denial going on. they don't shoot the piano player. [laughter] can anyba good come if they were to come to pass and both of you say there will be global higher temperatures. >> let me ask you first. >> it is important with warming.

a fact that isn't publicized is incriminating it takes place in places during colder seasons and colder times so it's more the world becoming less cold and cold places at times than more warmth and even if there's negatives, people like warmth. heat related deaths are far fewer.so so i want to point out a point of philosophy. the reason people don't care about this is they have a philosophy that is the planet we inherited wasnd perfect and any impact is inevitably self-destructive. it is a religious dogma and that is why they are so concerned with all these negatives and they don't w appreciate if we lk

at the world from a pro human perspective in a climate renaissance multi-climate crisis. >> the temperature we have now the best temperature because we are adapted. if you look around the world we have our entire world around this temperature so people build houses on permafrost but assume it is never going to melt within the houses is split. people build a cities on the seas because the sea level rises and we have trillions. we make trillions of these adaptations. when you build a bridge you assume a temperature range. if it gets outside of that range you have to repair the bridge so there are trillions and it's going to be extremely expensive to adapt. will there be some positives, i have no doubt there are some

people somewhere that point out we arehe warming the latitudes more than the equator. i live in texas and i really don't care what happens in canada. i care what happens in san antonio and austinhe and it's ge you have to run our air conditioners more we're gonna have i mean, it's going to be very expensive for us to adapt another one from the audience and and i'm gonna skip houston.

the part about our generating more co2. >> we've definitely increased. >> and are we helping plant life? >> absolutely. if that were the only thing that was happening, you certainly would be helping plants. speople do that. but of course that is and what is happening. what i mentioned before in california, they can't get water so i would also point out -- >> there's definitely harms forming as well but i want to factor in the two variables that are the benefits of the fossil fuels and climate.

i want to reiterate, the fossil fuels especially in the parts of the world that care the most about the low-cost reliable low cost reliableenergy like ch. the world is drastically short of energy this is the context to make themselves productive and prosperous. hisch subsidized but they are 3% of the world's energy that are dependent once the reliable sources of energy that is fossil fuel and we have a claim that we could rapidly ban the world's leading sources of energy to replace them with solar and wind. this wouldal literally end the millions of lives prematurely so the details of what co2 does or doesn't do are trivial. anything in the realm of the possibility is masterfully and nothing compared to the benefits if we followed the professor's

policies. >> going to ask each of you how much can the u.s. and europe mitigated when they assumed to be the largest economy soon to be the most populist to produce sold much of the world's carbon emission and a follow-up question for each of you. >> it is a global problem. the u.s. can't solve the problem by ourselves. but that's a political issue. i'm not someone that's an expert on the international negotiations. the point is we can do this physically.

the u.s. has enormous leadership capabilities. we kind of lead the way in the way the country will follow and others recognize. >> it's amazing how china and k india have even more with 200 more coal plants the only demonstrable way is to not agree with them but we've seen that fail a lot in terms of the mission. it's coming up with lower-cost sources of low carbon and no carbon energy. and the solar wind is contrary to that because it reinforces. it creates theha grid unfairness with of the up and down reliable is in favor of the over nuclear.

so we need to recognize that there is a decriminalized. europe has been the leader on this issue. is going green and luxury of the postindustrial economy such as ours is that is what i am told our economy is and is it an unrealistic burden to keep on the economies that are still

developing?ni based on the primitive religion and philosophy w that it's also somehow inevitably self-destructive like you violate the commandment and it's wrong but you're also going to g' to hell. this is a primitive view and it's not a view held by anybody that rationally lives in nature. so if you are in nature you would understand only when you've been so elevated by other people's mastery that you take for granted the world you live in and you think of that is natural. do you support and adapt these policies and what we do is we have a totally nongreen society and these policies on the rest

of the world in the name of the so-called development telling them not to go and to somehow use solar wind and power a flashlight or charge a cell phone than have a real economy so this movement i think is fundamentally immoral and harming the poorest people of the world. >> the people that work on this do the peer-reviewed research and's wind and solar. he's making stuff up when he says it is expensive. show me a study. we can't really check each other on the fly but it's not elitist because if people cannot afford

renewable energy or fossil fuel with all the costs to master the climate it is incredibly expensive and a building seawalls is expensive and the infrastructure is expensive. it's going to impoverish us. i don't think that it's going to end human society but it's certainly possible and i might even say plausible. i said initially we are going to be spending all of our time. other people in the room might be, t spending all their money just trying to stay alive and master the climate but it's not cheap. look at the seawalls and all of the kind of investments people have to make. >> this one keeps coming up. you makeno predictions about the future acknowledging the present and t we haven't experienced wee been increasing the amount in the atmosphere. 2 degrees of warming,

2 degrees fahrenheit, we are talking about three more. what we have seen his mastery hasn'tt. been a cost. it's drastically reduced so the mastery is something that we do any way to deal with the dangers of nature and if you look at the kind of changes we are talking about they are extremely slow and in ali civilization that's always rebuilding itself anyway so even very slow masterful changes keeping billions of people in poverty isn't a slow change. and e i keep pointing out every oreal-world example where you ty to use unreliable solar and wind is increasing the cost. these studies by a selection that are mostly not economists and mostly environmentalists that decided to make up these scenarios denied a the present d most economists know fossil fuels are crucial for the future including those in china and india that are making the real decisions, so there's this energyo denial to justify this inhumane policy and again it's

so great. find the place and make it work because in practice it is just killing people and making people leinsecure like europe right no. >> on renewables, that is wrong and the problem with these 'debates i can't go to the website and to show it's wrong so i will do it after this. >> i wish somebody could get a still love me doing this. [laughter] letk . me do a time check. we want to preserve a minute or so for each of the speakers to come up with what they've come here to say and what they have to say in the debate and at the same time amo tremendous amountf questions that show how learned you are. we've only scratched the surface and i would like to get to a few more if there's time for that. >> there's 15 more minutes, right?t? >> i'm not sure how you want to do that.

let's go with some more of these. some of them overlap andnd thats why i'm trying to call. as some have also been addressed in various ways. but let'sf get back to a number of them that touch on the cost of renewables, the real world costs and a number of these address by the way for the record and number on that you said that the electricfi car cos ten dollars to develop and will do so in the future because the energy. why do you think california has such high electricity prices when they've built most of the renewable energy tinfrastructures? >> a good question. so i think that we have to look at the time of when people build out their infrastructure.

when you look at that plot it shows ten years ago, solar was the most expensive power and today solar is the least expensive power. so germany had a w lot of power that wasn't expensive. it's going to drive up the cost. we should think germany because they are spending a lot of time on it. that's what they are doing they building a solar. one hundred gigawatts in the next few years. so it's cheap. i know people don't like to hear that. i was on a very popular podcast recently. you can't imagine how many people e-mailed me about that that were going through an energy revolution. you will have to know that. you can't have a reasonable debate about that if you don't go to the revolution we are going under or through right now. >> i'm going to try to say something noncompetitive. so it's true as i mentioned

solar and wind are not replacements for fossil fuels. they are cost adding supplements because again they depend on a 100% reliable infrastructure so it is true as some of the prices go down they will add less cost but they still do add a cost costeverywhere that they are us. the study is tend to be

conservative. the ability because they are unreliable like 1 the first 10%s cheaper than there second 10% ts drives up costs so you defund the resiliency. the texas grid used the same as reliablele electricity. not one person in this room would pay the same amount for

the reliable employees and then non-reliable so this is a total bull corruption and we are not talking about the 80% that is non-electricity or the billions thatat solar and wind can justiy rapidly with no cost is murderous. >> i understand is a longtime fellow is that part of what is driving some of it? >> they have an auction every day where energy producers command and say this is how much i will charge you for energy and they did.

we are going to take the 60 cheapest to gigawatts of power and they have an advantage. the market because of that to continue building wind and solar essentially forever is the cheapesthe energy source. or to build other types of power. it's not aha problem with the energy and that is a big

difference we have now. wind and solar are not the problem. the problem is the market we need to redesign the market to give some advantage you have to have that on the grid. >> they need to come in and solve that problem. the way to think of it is the proper policy monopolizing the long-term system cost analysis if you look at the electricity needs and what will me to that of the long-term and when you do that you tend to favor. i remember the point i missed

before. because they are real physical materials a lot of them are going up why is that if they are so cheap and slave labor. it's one of the smaller distortions engaged in one of

the questions coming from the audience this one was directed to you compared to the drilling rig in texas and the variation but whatn about that setting aside questions of ethics and morality. >> a couple responses to that. years ago there would be a coal-fired power plant and then you could see the wind turbines.

they need to stabilize the grid andd understand you need to have some power i wish they were building nuclear but they are not doing that. now as far as the other part of your question certainly there are supply chain issues that's

how you make advances. you need to look at the full context and the benefits of the co2 and the fact of the fossil fuels benefit and if you look at the reality today and recognize how the world blocks the situation is they have unique massive and near-term benefits both for people that have energy

and for the billions more who needed including solar's isinsecure and the whole thing s supplied but based on denying fossil fuel benefits and climate mastery and it's based on falsehoods so that's what i've tried to explainal today. >> as i've said at the beginning and i will say now we. need to power no one doubts that the question is what is the power source. that is the best power source for us to lose.

the cheapest energy of the future look at what people are installing now and the idea is not correct tos the grid. fossil fuels plays in the atmosphere.ne and there's a security issue let meut point out 56 people it goes

to show how engaged you are with the debate. engaging like this with starkly different views. to provide suchgh an exchange. let's applaud both of them. [applause] >> thank you, gentlemen. it takes a lot of courage. so kudos. [applause]

in a diner for internetwork is even harder. that's why we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework can just be